Hacker News Reader

Comment by bobjordan | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, well after having a multi-day house party thrown in my Houston home by a local guy that had the gall to write "God Bless you" several times before the rental, and Airbnb doing nothing about the damages (huge scratches on brand new $5K bedroom suite, a frigging water-logged kitchen ceiling, cabinet doors torn off hinges, etc.) we will no longer rent to any local, of any race. Anyone that rents my house is going to prove they are an out-of-town traveler. At the end of the day, the owner should have the final word on their house.

View on HN

Golly, and how do you think your neighbors felt about the house party? Something you'd like going on in your quiet neighborhood, or on the floor above your apartment?

Much like how cryptocurrency is a high-speed re-enactment of how and why we developed modern financial institutions and regulations, Airbnb is a high-speed re-enactment of how and why we developed regulations on and protections for transient lodging establishments.

Having some sailors come to town and trashing the hotel is nothing new, and neither are the hoteliers thinking that excluding "certain folk" is a good way to limit the damage.

I like your: "<Startup x> is a high-speed re-enactment of how and why we developed regulations ...".

What do you feel Airbnb should have done about it?

I haven't tried to use it before, so I'm not sure about the process, however it seems to me that a homeowner is in no different of a position than a hotelier.

It would make sense that your price contains the cost of insurance, and that your own rules / t&c's govern the guests stay.

Surely the recourse is a civil case against the guest rather than against airbnb?

I doubt any hotel could sue booking.com for the actions of a guest

Hotels usually have the credit card number of the guest.

and insurance and the means and laws to go after the former guest

And don't forget scale. When I'm pushing thousands of people through my place in a year, I can plan for certain events and budget for them. An individual can be wiped out by a bad roll of the dice.

I mean, it's the hotelier's responsibility to get insurance.

Is there no way for an Airbnb host to get the identity of their guest?

> I mean, it's the hotelier's responsibility to get insurance.

Yes, its a requirement to be open.

> Is there no way for an Airbnb host to get the identity of their guest?

I've never used Airbnb so I don't know, but Airbnb hosts do not have the same legal protection as a hotel and they might actually be in violation of local and state laws plus any lease agreements they are a party to.

That's not really relevant here. The article is specifically about racial discrimination.

The article says that one way AirBnB is handling racial discrimination is to "accelerate the use of instant bookings, which lets renters book places immediately without host approval." It's not AirBnB's goal, but as a side effect it would affect bobjordan, so it is relevant.

(edit: it would depend on how they implement more instant booking. If they just encouraged renters to use it (but could they just encourage and still stop discrimination?), people like bobjordan could just opt out).

The skeptic in me says that pushing Instant Bookings is their primary goal as it lets them be closer to how hotels book. The discrimination angle is a great way to roll it out because it solves a another problem for them.

If you don't turn on instant bookings with your property, then you don't have anything to worry about.

https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/484/what-is-instant-book

What's relevant is that AirBnB is against the Freedom of Owners to select who stays at their place. In the end Owners should have the final word, no matter what, certainly not AirBnB.

I agree even if AirBnB is the booking driver.

1) AirBnB has a history of poor support for hosts that have troublesome renters.

2) AirBnB does a terrible job screening renters.

3) This could be easily used against a host improperly. I had a group of sorority girls that wanted to book my house. They told me they had almost 40 women so I declined. I don't have a problem with women but this could be used against me in a legal battle. You have to discriminate as a host. If 10 young guys wanted to book my house too my radar would be off that they MIGHT be there for a party. It has nothing to do with being a bigot against age or gender but minimizing risk which AirBnB does not help with.

If they enforce instant book I could be stuck with 40 women at my house in a city I'm legally approved for advertising and sleeping 14 (it's based on 200 sq ft per person). AirBnB doesn't have all the local rules.

4) Let's say someone is bigoted and they own a house - if you're a potential renter in a group they dislike, do you really want to shell over money to them and stay at their home? Also, what are the chances that the bigoted host is going to provide a good experience or good customer support when required?

These booking sites are taking more money and providing less. They want to drop your ADR like Uber wanted to drop fares for wider appeal. And they avoid all liability. It's getting more and more unfriendly for hosts.

Let's say someone is bigoted and they own a company - if you're a potential employee in a group they dislike, do you really want to spend your days in their workplace? Also, what are the chances that the bigoted employer is going to provide a good experience or career progression when required?

...so we're cool with dropping employment discrimination laws too?

You're comparing employment with staying at someone's HOME.

If you choose to make your home a place of business, you must comply with business rules.

They're providing a service in return for money, they have to declare the earnings from such for tax purposes... there is no line here. A psychiatrist who operates out of a home office has no legal right to discriminate based on race, either.

This is a case for dropping employment laws, not enforcing them on a wider class of people.

You're saying that evidence AirBnB hosts discriminate racially is a case for dropping employment laws?

The laws of the United States disagree with you. Unless you are renting out part of your own residence, you do not have the freedom to select who stays there on the basis of race.

Do you think employers should be free to select who works in their company, irrespective of any laws surrounding discrimination?

I'm pretty sure your new personal rule-of-thumb isn't discrimination.

The problem is that it is. Any such rule of thumb is discrimination. Even if you had some magical way of knowing whether given guest will destroy your apartment with perfect certainty, using that to filter guests will still be discrimination.

Trying to eliminate discrimination always ends up by removing any kind of ability to choose your customer.

AirBNB lists several specific types of discrimination their policy forbids - discrimination against "locals" is not one of them.

https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1405/airbnb-s-nondiscrim...

This is either largely unrelated to the original post or intensely problematic. You would do well to reconsider what you have written here and how it relates to the topic at hand.

Did you read the article?

> Airbnb said it would also accelerate the use of instant bookings, which lets renters book places immediately without host approval.

The fact that the author of your parent-comment does go through and approve individuals means that this policy would hurt him/her.

What evidence is there that instant booking guests are more destructive than others?

>The fact that the author of your parent-comment does go through and approve individuals means that this policy would hurt him/her.

How, exactly? It sounds like he talked to his destructive guest before the rental. So that particular guest was not an instant booking.

I posted an example above but instant book doesn't force a potential renter to be screened which makes it easier for destructive guests to book. If you're throwing a party, would you rather instant book or have to chat with the host?

As my example, if a renter instant books and is going to bring 40 people to a place you are legally approved locally for sleeping 14, other neighbors can report you to the city and you could be fined or lose your license to rent.

So you can have issues with instant bookers even if they aren't destructive.

> What evidence is there that instant booking guests are more destructive than others?

OP isn't saying that they are, they're saying that they now want to apply a new screen (out-of-town-ness) that they think is evidence of not being destructive, but would be unable to do so if Airbnb forced everyone to allow instant bookings.

But they're not mandating instant booking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com